Blah Blah

Fly tippers though are not people putting out the odd sofa or washing machine are they, which is who the bulk refuse scheme is aimed at. I'd hardly call charging a savage cut either. 73% cut to youth services is a savage cut, along with the coming cuts to adult social care, including care services for the elderly. Those are the extent of government cuts on Southwark. Compared to that, having to pay a tenner or whatever the charge will be to have your 'stuff' removed isn't really a big deal is it? Or would you rather an elederly person has shorter care visits so that everyone can have their bulky items removed for free? If you can afford to buy a new anything, you can afford to pay to have the old one removed.

Dulwich Estates made the Vanessa Radio show yesterday too over the sale of playing fields at the Judith Kerr School to build alms houses on.

The simple solution would be for him to put lids on the crates (and clean his truck). Rotting vegetable waste isn't a health hazard. Compost is made from it.

And with 40% cuts from central government since 2010, Southwark like any LA is struggling to maintain many services. If anyone wants to criticise Southwark charging for bulky waste collections, maybe write to David Cameron instead?

As long as the voltage is the same it's fine and most cars work off 12v. The only point of the jump start is to spark the plugs anyway, to get the engine started. It's hard to do any real damage. There can be several reasons for a battery not charging apart from the battery itself being past its sell by date. A failing alternator or a missing fan belt will both stop the battery from recharging.

Exactly. The gyms and swimming pools would still be open whether people were using them or not. They don't cost more to run because more people are using them. And the range of classes, activities on offer is wide ranging, so most revenue streams won't be affected at all. I would imagine Saturday and Sunday evenings are very much off peak anyway and many of the people taking advantage of the offer wouldn't go if they had to pay - so it's not really lost revenue at all. I think the cost is negligable.

Those on low incomes would struggle to even find a few pounds a week to go swimming.

I had a look on the ordinance survey maps to and until around 1950 it seems it was a pathway to some land behind. Doesn't say for what use. So an added on garage makes far more sense than a coach house. I half wonder if that label was also to sell the property as something it never was, for effect. All of it is ridiculous though.

Good article.

By the end of a 25 year mortgage it would have cost almost 1.2 million to buy! Googled the address to see if it started life as a house and it seems it was originally a coach house. So 1.2 million for an old shed then?

It's an excellent idea that will enable people on low and no incomes to genuinely improve their fitness and health. The long term benefits of that will far outstrip any cost. Savings to potential treatments by the NHS alone are worth considering. Obesity and poor cardiovascular health opens up a person to a whole raft of medical conditions that are an expense not only to the NHS to treat, but also to local support services funded by the council. We don't do enough preventative healthcare in the UK. This is a positive step towards that.

Yes it's tfl... https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/elephant-and-castle The site has a face to contact....a sponsorship manager - says it all really.

Maybe the councillor could clarify that? Either way, to remove subways that ensured pedestrians didn't come into contact with traffic, and to remove the safe island crossings for cyclists, that meant they didn't have to (as they now do) navigate compacted vehicles and take a leap of faith to change lanes, are not decisions that can be defined as improving safety. Something does not make sense in the planning or design of this new layout. And sadly someone has now died. The comments under the article I posted are rather interesting, particularly with regards to the forthcoming redevelopment of the area.

Yes I read the comments and found them interesting too, especially the one that suggested the new layout was designed to attract investment over any kind of sensible traffic/pedestrian management. Even cyclists had an easier time before because they could use assigned pathways crossing the roundabout. Now they are forced to go with the rest of the traffic, trying to cross lanes to get to the right filter lane, amongst more densely packed vehicles. The fact still remains, that if pedestrians are forced to cross traffic, there will always be the risk of accidents. When pedestrians can avoid traffic altogether, there are no accidents. The same is true for cyclists. How the designer of this new layout thought either of those two groups of users would be safer is mystifying.

The bursery point though does shed a different light on the money given by the estate to those schools, which is why I wondered. Business rents, again not something I know anything about, have been pushed up everywhere no? Small businesses have disappeared from our high streets because of that reason. There has to be some element of greed by landlords there.

Dangerous driving can mean impatient driving trying to navigate a much reduced road layout. Still remains that crossings that don't bring pedestrians into any contact with traffic are safer - so why remove them?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and-castle-crash-air-ambulance-lands-at-roundabout-after-lorry-hits-elderly-woman-in-south-a3174026.html So much for safety improvements. No pedestrian ever got hit by a vehicle in an underground crossing.

This it what happens when you take away underground crossings. The works aren't even completed and already a needless death. Well done Southwark Planning.

Do the schools provide scholarships and bursaries for some students though? I don't know the answer to that but just wonder that it might wrong to describe all pupils as fee paying at those schools. Having said that, like everyone above, I don't undertand why fee paying schools aren't self sufficient financially.

If it's untaxed then that's different. It probably needs repairs to be moved.

I think no MOT is just a fine, not grounds for towing. But as someone has just posted that it is owned by someone living nearby, why not have a chat with them? This ploy to try and get their vehicle taken from them just because they are parked (legally) somewhere someone isn't happy with, is wrong.

But as a percentage of people who cycle it is a very low percentage.

But cyclists don't hurtle through red lights civilservant - that would just be asking for an accident. Most light hoppers stop or slow to see if the way is clear and then continue. So yes, if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain and there's no traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, there is no harm done in crossing a red light. You might not like it and it may not be legal, but to suggest anyone doing that is a hurtling cyclist with no awareness of what is happening ahead of him is bonkers.

No-one is saying it is ok. What I'm trying to point out is that if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about. A driver would never need to feel like that. They have a warm and dry driving experience. I too dirac have got off a bicycle and crossed a pedestrian green light and got on my cycle again at the other side. It's perfectly legal to do that and at busy junctions may be the safer way to cross too, esp if wanting to turn right.

Yes, those men that just can't let go of their childhood BMX experience :D